In the immediate aftermath of the US Presidential election, I heard that the Clinton campaign wondered what “went wrong.” Perhaps they’re still wondering. I think back to the race in 2000, in which Al Gore won the popular, but lost the electoral, vote as Secretary Clinton did. I recall a confident (some would say cocky) candidate riding on the heels of a successful 2-term Democratic President. I recall a second candidate presenting himself as a man of the people (despite being born into wealth), rough around the edges, and a straight shooter. Does this sound familiar? (Hitler did the same, but I digress.)

Donald Trump has won the election (provided rogue electors don’t renege on their pledges next month) because he managed to successfully portray himself as a regular guy to a huge segment of the population. You know, a regular guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; a regular guy who is extremely wealthy; a regular guy who never had to scrape and save for anything, unless you count scratching and clawing to build an empire with a measly $1 million loan from father.

Candidate Trump served as an antidote to political correctness run amok (somewhere along the line we’ve forgotten that respect and decency are far more important than if someone has said the “right thing” the “right way.”); a lifeline to people who feel like their power and/or privilege is slipping away and erroneously blame groups of people who have never had the same level of power or privilege. You see, a whole bunch of people see successful women and People of Color–largely Black–in the entertainment field (professional sports and the music industry, in particular, for Black Americans) or as news anchors and get a distorted reality. They think the balance of power has somehow shifted and that women and racial/ethnic minorities have gotten more than their supposed “share” of the pie or American Dream, or whatever you want to call it.

I say distorted reality because overrepresentation in some realms/fields/industries/sectors does not reflect the reality for most women or People of Color in America. Sure, in many ways, a great deal of improvement has occurred, but according to the National Poverty Center, 1 in 3 American women (approximately 42 million) and nearly 30 million children, live in or at the edge of poverty. In the US, over 1/4 of Blacks and American Indians (Native Americans) live in poverty; 24% of Latinos/Hispanics do; 12% of Asians do; and 10% of non-Hispanic Whites do. The average Black American household in the U.S. has 6% of the wealth of the average White American household–6 percent. This is according to The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters. The average Latino household in the U.S. has 8% of the wealth that the average U.S. White household does. In real numbers we’re talking about over $111,000 in wealth for the average White family in the U.S., compared to $7,100 for the average Black family and $8,000 for the average Latino family (some calculations reveal a larger gap $112,000 versus $6,000, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/antonio-moore/the-decadent-veil-black-income-inequality_b_5646472.html).

I hear complaints about so-called reverse discrimination and allegations that if you’re a woman or non-White, you have a better chance to succeed in the U.S. than if you’re White. It’s sad that some people actually believe that. It’s worse than disturbing that some people who know that’s not true, nonetheless claim it in order to stir the pot of hostilities bringing it from a slow simmer to a rolling boil. What about all those rich athletes and rappers, you ask? First of all, economically successful athletes and rappers that are People of Color represent a small percentage of their respective populations overall. (In plainer terms, if you see the world in Black and White, the numbers of American Black athletes and rappers represent a small percentage of the overall Black population in the U.S. Those that are economically successful enough to be called millionaires are an even smaller percent.) Additionally, they represent a small percentage of millionaires overall. For more on the distorted view of Black wealth due to media coverage that overwhelmingly focuses on sports and entertainment, I suggest reading Antonio Moore’s blog post, “The Decadent Veil: Black America’s Wealth Illusion.”

So Donald Trump capitalized on distorted views portraying some groups getting ahead at the expense of White Americans, especially White men. Donald Trump didn’t say this, he just capitalized on the sentiment that has been building for years. He appealed to their desire to have someone speak for them. Never mind that Donald Trump cannot possibly relate to people from low-income backgrounds, struggling to make ends meet. That’s not a criticism, just a reality.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton made the ill-fated remark about the majority of Trump supporters being deplorables. She meant, of course, the fringe element spouting racism, misogyny, anti-immigrant statements, homophobia, and anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic (among other things) sentiments. Those people got much more of the media focus than other Trump supporters. Some pundits referred to his followers as uneducated. Many after the election have chosen to focus on the voice of the “non-college-educated White male” as if Trump’s persona and comments haven’t appealed to the upper-class frat boy mentality, and his friendships with the likes of Mike Tyson and Bill Belichick haven’t appealed to countless other self-proclaimed “tough guys.” (Not to mention, that others simply felt their opinions on particular policy issues fell more in line with Trump than Clinton.) No one wants to be referred to as stupid, ignorant, or deplorable–unless they rally around it, showcasing cheesy t-shirts, bumper stickers, caps, and buttons like badges of honor (much like redneck was considered a bad thing, until it became a cash cow for enterprising merchandisers…You know if you’re a Deplorable if…).

So Ivy-League educated Donald Trump came off as regular Joe, while Hillary Clinton came off as elitist. Much like Ivy-League educated George W. Bush came off as mascot for the less-educated and Al Gore came off as uppity. Sort of like how Ivy-League educated Barack Obama came off as a regular guy and Mitt Romney came off as an out-of-touch snob–except “ignorant” was not generally a term thrown at President Obama like it was thrown at former-President G.W. Bush; and “crude” hasn’t been attached to Obama like it has been attached to the President-Elect. Furthermore, the King of Boasts, Tall Tales, and so-called Locker Room Talk managed to portray himself to many as more truthful than Hillary Clinton. Let’s call him Teflon Don. Of course the big issue I’ve managed to avoid thus far is that Donald Trump presented himself as a regular Joe, while Hillary Clinton could never do so as a woman. Did a huge number of people choose Trump just to avoid a female President? (Cokie Roberts thinks it’s possible.)

Now we find ourselves in the middle of protests and talks to finally rid ourselves of the very un-democratic Electoral College. I can only imagine what we would be facing had the outcome of the election been different. I can imagine the outcries of a rigged election that would have come from both the Trump campaign and outspoken Republican pundits who attached themselves to the Trump Train, had he not won the required number of electoral votes. It would have been ironic, considering the hacking that occurred throughout the campaign was tied to those seeking to discredit the Clinton camp (the highly-partisan WikiLeaks and the Russian government–allegedly). I don’t hear talk from leading Democrats about rigged election machines or hacked election results, so that’s something.

President-Elect Trump must work on creating a solid foundation to bring Americans closer together–first by fostering greater unity. Of course, this can’t happen if he keeps silent about the atmosphere of hatred that’s out there. He also faces an uphill battle considering his alleged, disgusting treatment of women and his subsequent denials-by-insult. His presidency needs to frequently reference the real economic gaps between groups–rather than the fiction of Whites losing out to People of Color, as well as between rich and poor. Poor people, and blue collar people, in general regardless of color or racial/ethnic background, rarely get seen at all–except in a negative light or as caricatures. It’s long past time to remedy this. Let’s hear their stories and put in place policy to foster economic independence rather than dependence.

There is always talk by politicians of the middle class. Let’s help the middle-class. Sure, sounds great. Many millionaires consider themselves to be middle-class. Over half of the members of Congress were identified as millionaires. My middle class and your middle class, wealthier politician, are probably not the same group of people. We need to provide people from low-income and working-class backgrounds real opportunities to provide a good life for their families. (I’m sorry, in most parts of this country, that doesn’t include people making 6 figures. It doesn’t, although I know many are probably working paycheck to paycheck too.) Vocational education programs in the U.S. should be strengthened in all schools and combined with STEM. A high number of new manufacturing plants should be created in the most economically depressed areas and they should provide comprehensive, on-the-job training opportunities for adults living in those areas, along with internships for high school and college students.

There is plenty of work to be done in the U.S.–to repair both our infrastructure and our trust in one another. Forget making America great “again”. For some populations it has never gotten there. I’m talking about anyone member of a group that’s been oppressed. Yes, that includes poor White people. If you think this country has been great for you as your family has experienced generations of poverty, well delusions can be a great thing.

Let’s make the United States of America truly great for all of its population. It will take time, real resources, a move towards equity, RESPECT, human decency, a successful fight against hatred, an end to misogyny, frank dialogue (2-way conversation involves listening, respect, openness, sharing…), okay it will take a lot, but it’s worth fighting for and working towards. It’s now your show and your move Mr. President-Elect. Can you actually get Congress to function to promote human rights and better economic opportunity for all Americans? Will you be willing to show people from similar economic backgrounds that they are more alike than not? Can you remove this artificial barrier that’s been put up since before the colonists started a revolution–the barrier that pits races against each other? Do you even know it’s there and why it was created? (Hint: To keep the wealthy, wealthy.) Are you willing to nominate Supreme Court justices that have no desire to roll back Roe v. Wade or marriage equality? Will you go back to wanting to amend the Affordable Care Act rather than revoke it (which you were for (amending) before you weren’t)?

Mr. President-Elect, you can start by weeding out from your circle the hateful hangers-on that have followed along behind you. For one, Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have lost his mind (or possibly taken off a carefully constructed mask) over the last 15 years, should be sent back to the Big Apple. Newt Gingrich can exit, as well. Get some people behind you that are willing to work with others regardless of political party. The jury’s still out on the arse-kisser from the Garden State, who probably needs to take a back seat on the Train, as well, although when no one’s looking he sometimes makes sound decisions. We’ll all be watching to see what you do. You won’t have to wait for history to be your judge.

The adage patience is a virtue has been around for a very long time, but it’s no less true today. How about good things come to those who wait? Well, if wait means sit around and accept abuses of power, make juvenile jokes but do nothing to improve the way things are, pretend that you don’t care about anything, or buy into the mindset that success is monetary and comes to individuals solely because of their own hard work, then the good things will never come to the people waiting. If, however, wait is akin to patience, then waiting for those you trust to help make inroads into addressing some of the more pressing ills in society (rather than bashing them for not going quickly enough) should surely lead to some positive gains.

The U.S. political system is in sad shape, not because of an inherent flaw but because of how we’ve come to define political success and how folks elected to represent us have come to care more about the power we’ve entrusted them with than actually representing our interests; because the masses have failed to articulate our mutual interests and provide a solid timetable for getting them met.

There are a myriad of reasons why people run for public office. Some do it out of some inherited sense that they must protect the masses from themselves. They see political office as a birthright, and while they may never say it, truly believe that their aristocratic heritage has come with the patriarchal burden of leading the less privileged. They think the average person is ill-equipped (due to a lack of so-called cultured experiences and, (gasp) inferior breeding—yes, I said what many think) to run the government (at least on a federal level), to even be able to intelligently identify and articulate her/his needs. It was this elitist thinking that prevented our forefathers from establishing a true democracy, after all. A representative democracy was deemed safer. It’s why the popular vote doesn’t actually directly determine who wins the presidency. You know this. You learned it at some point in your life.

Others run for office because they want to win at the highest levels. Perhaps they were captains of the cheerleading squad or football teams. Maybe they were all-county in tennis in the country club circuit. They led their prep squad to an undefeated season in lacrosse, golf, basketball, baseball. They left behind a legacy of winning when they graduated from the rugby, cricket, or squash club they helped form as undergrads. They were always used to competing and winning and, dammit, they are going to win in politics too. Maybe they’ve never really given thought to what happens after they secure the “victory” of getting elected. The victory, you see, is in getting elected, not what happens afterward.

Conversely, sometimes the perennial loser seeks political office. The mindset isn’t much different from the über-competitive winner. The difference is that they weren’t actually the captains of anything the social circles to which they aspired deemed worthy enough. For some reason the Insect Club in high school didn’t carry the same cachet as athletics, band, or even the debate club. So what’s a competitive person who hasn’t gained the social recognition he or she desires throughout childhood or adolescence to do? Why, pledge to a prestigious fraternity or sorority! Lead the Junior Insert-the-Political-Party’s! Go to law school! Run for political office! Not a loser now, am I? Gee, Mr. or Ms. Office Holder, what’ll you do now that you’re in office? Why, run for a higher office, Dear Child.

Lest you’ve become even more jaded reading this, let me remind you that there are those that run for office to truly address societal ills. Of course there are those, misguided, who define ills in the same way human rights groups define justice. But there are many who truly want to secure rights and gains for those for whom these things have been historically denied. Some of these individuals survive in office, never wavering from this goal. Their constituents may or may not reward them with re-election, but they typically remain unnoticed in the national spotlight. (With how many Congressmen and Congresswomen are you familiar?) These individuals have patience but are not sitting on their laurels waiting for good things to happen. Their loyal constituents practice patience, going again and again to the polls to make sure they stay in office. They are active, not passive. They don’t assume these people will get re-elected on their own. They don’t cry that these elected officials are not doing enough and then sit at home whining when somebody else wins and puts in place an agenda that will set social progress back decades.

A lot of criticism has been heaped on President Obama. He was criticized on the campaign trail, but enough people went out to the polls because they were inspired by his message and finally decided the country was seeping too far into economic ruin and socio-political despair. Many of these same individuals were not so inspired by John Kerry and, therefore, chose to grumble and suffer through four additional years of monetary disaster rather than vote to at least get out of office what they knew to not be working. So, they placed years of hope and dreams into the candidacy of one man.

And now, many are expressing frustration. They are disgruntled. They mock the name they once promoted. Why? Perhaps because they are not patient. Perhaps they practice the motto of “Get all now or get nothing.” This attitude might be something to applaud if it were followed up with action. In the mid-term elections it was followed up with inaction by most, action by a few—many of those with ideas long considered to be on the fringe. Well, tip your hats to them. They did not put up and shut up. They wanted change and elected people to go get it for them. You know, people who want slavery removed from history books, people who wanted to more narrowly define rape in a misguided attempt to rein in federal spending for abortions.

Let’s for a minute take a look at what the Obama Administration has accomplished:

Healthcare reform—It’s not perfect, but it’s a whole lot better than letting wealthy insurance companies and medical professionals run roughshod over everybody else; once a good deal of government waste is mopped up, our system will smell a whole lot better and be more efficient and cost-effective. Our other recent presidents were either too fearful to address this or too comfortable to even see a problem. But let’s blame this Administration for fringing on our liberties. Okay. For not doing enough, when nothing was being done before. ‘Kay, let’s.

Taking some well-aimed swings at Wall Street—Okay, no home runs yet, but it’s refreshing to see the hacks. If more Americans would start to hold corporate America accountable the government would follow suit.

End of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—Sorry it didn’t happen on your timetable, those of you who have been the most vocal since Obama took office. I’m sorry, I must have gotten a new hearing aid. I didn’t hear your loud voices during the Clinton or Walker Bush Administrations. Those who have been working to get this absurd policy thrown out for years are celebrating the victory, while the Johnny-Come-Lately’s, the I Didn’t Speak Up Before’s, are sour that it took so long.

Major reduction of troops in Iraq and some serious improvements there—Yes, this has been tempered by increases in Afghanistan, but the man ran on that platform to get troops out of Iraq in a militarily safe and intelligent manner and to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. This wasn’t something he pulled out of his hindquarters once he took office. Were you listening before you voted?

Administration’s acknowledgment that the federal government has no right to define marriage and conclusion that the provision in the Defense of Marriage Act (implemented under President Clinton, I’ll remind you) that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman is unconstitutional—no, this hasn’t actually led to a repeal but it was a major announcement, paving the way for a challenge to the law that federal prosecutors will no longer defend.

Signs that the economy is improving—Let’s not get this twisted, Obama came into office long after we fell into an economic cesspool of unemployment. The disparity between rich and poor was never higher than in the past decade. So, let’s blame Obama for not snapping his fingers and making things right. Right. Right? The much-ridiculed stimulus bill and bailout of Detroit have led to some improvements. Let’s investigate ways to go farther.

The Obama Administration has had some fumbles and foibles. It has been slow to address some issues and hasn’t gone as far in addressing others, as what might have been hoped, but I’d rather have them addressed at some point and to some degree than not addressed at all. This President hasn’t sounded as cocksure and definitive as President G.W. Bush (that’s the knock G.H.W. Bush received, as people flocked to the more charismatic W.J. Clinton; on the other hand, H. Clinton was ridiculed for sounding authoritative…), but I’d rather have someone in office willing to challenge himself, than someone seemingly self-righteous and unwilling to question anything. Obama consistently expressed, before he was elected, his personal views of marriage being between a man and a woman, but that hasn’t stopped him from viewing the same definition as unconstitutional when authorized by federal law.

When the 2012 campaign gets underway, I’m curious to see if patience wins out over impatience. Will people who haven’t been patient enough sit back and watch people with whom they fundamentally disagree get into office? Will patient people re-elect a man who has been making some progress towards social justice? Will patient people put money, support, and their words of encouragement behind candidates who want to go further with reform that will benefit the most disadvantaged in society? Will impatience lead to rash support of a party that has no clear definition of what it is or a party that is very clear about what it is (and it’s not about the less privileged?) Or will it result in blind loyalty to a party that says it’s about the less privileged but has often portrayed a weakness and unwillingness (lack of desire?) to challenge the status quo when actually given a shot at prominence?

If you want to see the U.S. government acknowledge the biases inherent in our institutions and the inefficiency and oppressive nature of many long-supported policies, if you want to see the government implement sound policies that will curb the abuses of corporations and politicians who are more interested in dollar signs than human beings, work actively to find and back people that want the same things and have the courage and support to create and push through major legislation that will get us going on the path to justice at a workable, brisk pace. Cracking jokes, coming up with juvenile names to call political figures or parties, whining about your problems, none of these things are going to get you where you want to go—unless you don’t want to go anywhere. Educate yourself and find out where you want to go or have you been convinced that there is nowhere to go?

Congratulations on forcing Hosni Mubarak to resign. Millions of you stood up and protested against oppressive rule and you got results. Many of you would like a democracy—or perhaps a representative democracy modeled after the U.S. government—to replace the dictatorship that was in place under Mubarak. Yet, at least as reported by Western newsmen and women, many of you have expressed hostility towards the United States for supporting Mubarak’s regime for over thirty years.

Because the U.S. did not remove Mubarak, it’s at fault? The same could be said about the millions of Egyptians who lived in Egypt during Mubarak’s reign and did nothing to pressure his resignation. That probably sounds tactless to many, as the real blame belongs at the feet of Mubarak and his cronies, and not the victims of his oppressive control. However, why should the United States be blamed for supporting a politician whose own people (by and large) were not crying to have removed from office until recently?

Despite the myth that many have throughout the world, and that the U.S. government propagates from time to time when it seems militarily or politically advantageous, the United States is not Savior of the World. While the U.S. government (and numerous charities within the country) has sponsored numerous humanitarian efforts to help people and even countries in need, government policies are generally dictated by political opportunism and a complex web of negotiations among allies. I place no moral judgments on that; just simply offer facts. Yes, at times that opportunism has led the U.S. to both formally and informally sponsor military campaigns or plots by various agencies to overthrow governments in different parts of the world. That opportunism has also led the U.S. government to actively—if not formally—sponsor efforts to suppress efforts to overthrow governments criticized for being dictatorships. It would be naïve to believe this has not been the case. Finally, this opportunism has sometimes led the U.S. government to sit back and let events unfold before coming out in support of any side in a dispute concerning other sovereign nations.

Whether you believe it is the U.S.’s job to intervene in international conflict or it isn’t, is your opinion. But I ask you to look at the track record of U.S. intervention in other countries’ political unrest. Following are but a handful of examples. The Bay of Pigs fiasco, which was supposed to overthrow Castro’s dictatorship in Cuba, was a spectacular failure. Certainly the Iranian students who led a revolution in the late 1970’s did not appreciate the U.S.’s support of the Shah of Iran. The U.S. government’s overt, and later covert, support and financial backing of the Contras in Nicaragua (who committed gross human rights violations) was not popularly supported. Countless Iraqis are bitter at the U.S. for invading Iraq and removing a ruler who, by all accounts, committed gross abuses against the populace. Afghans, en masse, are not dancing in the streets grateful for the U.S.’s efforts to eliminate Al-Qaeda and curb abuses by the Taliban.

So, exactly, what would you have hoped for with U.S intervention, Egypt? Eventually, groups of you fed up with abuses by your government stood together and protested loudly and united. You got the attention of the international community. You got the attention of the U.S. government, who did encourage and pressure—perhaps in not the way you desired—Mubarak to step down. The U.S.-suggested timetable for his resignation might not have met with your approval, but your desire won out. Be proud of your efforts and work to establish a democratic government that provides security to all citizens. Fight against forces who will want to replace Mubarak with their own brand of oppressive rule.

Harboring grudges against the U.S. government—that you seek to emulate—is counterproductive. The only group that had a right to overthrow the government of your sovereign nation was a group from within. Being angry at the United States for not doing what was your right and duty to do is unreasonable.

Rather than punishing companies for allowing abortions to be covered by insurance or narrowing the definition of rape to further restrict who can and cannot get abortions, we should spend time and money educating youth about sex, their bodies, and responsibility. Preventing unwanted pregnancies, rather than ending unwanted pregnancies, is the key. In the case of rape (by the broadest of definitions) no female should be prevented from legally ending a pregnancy that results from such a heinous crime.

New Jersey Republican Chris Smith’s “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” or H.R. 3, is a bill that would ban the use of taxpayer subsidies for abortions for any pregnancies not resulting from life-threatening illnesses or “forcible” rape. The distinction between what would constitute “forcible” rape (as opposed to what–non-forcible rape?) is what has many people concerned that the legislation will create a narrow definition of rape, which would have powerful ramifications.